NCJ Number
93184
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 8 Issue: 1/2 Dated: (June 1984) Pages: 7-30
Date Published
1984
Length
24 pages
Annotation
Since 1968, judges have used empirical social science data to consider the issue to the neutrality of death-qualified juries -- capital juries which exclude people whose views on the death penalty are considered incompatible with the duties of capital jurors.
Abstract
Until 1968, it was common practice to exclude anyone who opposed the death penalty in any manner. In 1968, the Witherspoon decision greatly curtailed the death qualification. Witherspoon presented drafts of three empirical studies which suggested that those who favor the death penalty are more likely to vote to convict. The Supreme Court ruled that the exclusion of opponents of the death penalty may not affect the determination of guilt, but that it prejudices the determination of penalty. Admitting that the empirical data were tentative and fragmentary, the court stated that its judgment was subject to revision if additional empirical evidence became available. In 1980, the California Supreme Court published its opinion in Hovey v. Superior Court. The petitioner argued that prospective jurors who would automatically vote against death at the penalty phase cannot constitutionally be excused from sitting at the guilt phase if they can be fair and impartial. Although the Hovey decision recognized the validity of more recent and conclusive empirical studies and accepted their conclusions, the verdict rejected the argument of the petitioner. The case decision also identified another empirical issue requiring further investigation: whether the exclusion of automatic death penalty jurors alters the effects of death qualification that have already been demonstrated. This issue has not been resolved. Perhaps the most important feature of the Hovey opinion is its recognition that the neutrality of juries is an empirical question. Footnotes, a list of 17 references, and a list of 45 cases are supplied.